Talk:Transgender health care misinformation

mention of ROGD in the lead.

At the moment the mention of Rapid onset gender dysphoria in the lead doesn't make it extremely clear that it's a concept with little to no evidence supporting it. Perhaps changing it from "that transgender youth are suffering from [ROGD] " we write " That a new subtype of gender dysphoria is spread through social contagion (often called rapid onset gender dysphoria)."

I'm very happy for other ideas just at the moment there isn't any suggestion about how scientifically sound the hypothesis of ROGD is, just that it's misleading or false to say that transgender youth are affected by it (consider the example of calling the claim that "transgender youth are suffering from hearing damage" a false claim, this says nothing about hearing damage being real, just that transgender youth don't suffer from it). LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we should mention that it has no scientific backing and has been heavily, heavily scrutinised by medical professionals. We also should not say that a new subtype of gender dysphoria is spread through social contagion because 1 the sources don't say that and 2 that's just not the case at all. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

My suggested sentence goes in a list of false/misleading claims so should be false/misleading. My point with the hearing damage example is that the current text says nothing about ROGD being false or misleading. LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh excuse me I misunderstood you, yes we should probably look for some reliable sources about that maybe some of the ones used in the ROGD article itself. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Also the difference between ROGD and hearing damage is that ROGD is not at all recognised as a real medical term or subtype of gender dysphoria. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Purpose of this article

This article is quite misleading and mostly just consists of calling anything transgender activists object to "disinformation" without basis (sound familiar?). For example it is very difficult to know what the rate of transition regret is because many clinicians do not properly follow up with their patients, and therefore the best we can do is estimate. This article also attacks ROGD as disinformation despite there not being definitive evidence for or against it. The overall impression I get is that is that the article is an "end run" around failed attempts to insert this sort of framing into the articles on the relevant subjects, which is a violation of WP:POVFORK. Partofthemachine (talk) 07:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

1. ) Here are dozens of major medical organizations explicitly saying The proliferation of misinformation regarding ROGD is also infiltrating policy decisions. Currently, there are over 100 bills under consideration in legislative bodies across the country that seek to limit the rights of transgender adolescents, many of which are predicated on the unsupported claims advanced by ROGD. Thus, even though ROGD is not a diagnostic classification or subtype in either the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), nor is it under consideration for inclusion in future editions, it is critical to address the misinformation regarding ROGD now.[1]
   • This article also attacks ROGD as disinformation despite there not being definitive evidence for or against it. - claiming trans kids are suffering from a disease there is no evidence exists is misinformation. I can say I think being trans is caused by a magical fairy named McScruffles. There is no evidence it's true, but there's no evidence it's not true, must it be taken seriously? By your logic, anybody who asks for evidence is ignoring the fact there's no evidence it's wrong...
2. ) The overall impression I get is that is that the article is an "end run" around failed attempts to insert this sort of framing into the articles on the relevant subjects - articles on the relevant subjects are framed the same way. The "end run" is trying to re-litigate those being fringe here - less than two months ago you tried to remove "scientifically unsupported" from the lead of ROGD and failed because only one editor agreed, while 11 opposed.[2]

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Medical organizations section is misleading

@LunaHasArrived: The author of the cited source misleadingly suggests that these organizations all agree with the activist viewpoint on this issue, which is false. While these organizations all oppose unilateral bans or age restrictions on gender medicine (as do I), many of them, especially those outside of the United States, advocate for a more cautious approach to gender-affirming care. Partofthemachine (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

That source (whilst older) seems to say that medical institutions in all 4 countries seem to still provide (and therefore endorse) gender affirming care, whilst we probably shouldn't cite it (medical care is outside of politicos usual expertise and it is older than the academic sources we have). The source doesn't seem to back up what you're saying about misleading and an activist approach to healthcare. LunaHasArrived (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

You tried to change every major medical organization endorses gender-affirming care to most major medical organization oppose bans on gender-affirming care[3]

From that article you linked, While Europeans are debating who should get care and when, only Russia has banned the practice. The reassessment of standards in some European countries has aimed to tighten eligibility for gender-affirming care, but also sought to expand research studies including minors.

The fact that some organizations in Europe disagree with how specifically to provide gender-affirming care does not mean they do not endorse gender-affirming care. Every medical organization says "we treat X with Y" is not mutually exclusive with some disagree over "how do we provide Y". Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Unbalanced content

I am re-tagging this article and I plan to work on both viewpoints for this topic. This article is grossly unbalanced as is pointed out by other editors on the article talk page. It attacks any disagreement with a body of medical research that challenges health care issues for trans children. Calling anyone who disagrees with health care restrictions base on state law for underage children pushers of "misinformation" is highly POV. This article needs several sections added which discuss state law bans on trans affirming surgery and other medical studies which discuss other considerations banning young children from ill-informed choices. Calling good faith edits by editors "transphobic" and pushers of misinformation is not AGF just because they disagree with the pro-trans medical position. KindHorta (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Only one other editor has claimed it is unbalanced, we have three editors on the page who don't agree (myself, @LunaHasArrived, and @Akechi The Agent Of Chaos), and 4 more who've edited it and presumably don't agree (@JnpoJuwan, @Di (they-them), @Bohemian Baltimore, and @Staraction).

Every single major medical organization in the US opposes these bans and explicitly calls out medical misinformation supporting them. Only a few small WP:FRINGE groups say otherwise.

Do you have RS that say there is something here that is not misinformation to counter the ones that say it is? Unless you can provide something more reliable than your opinion, this will go nowhere. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I am reviewing the content and sources at the present time and I plan to collect information on state law bans on trans affirming surgery and add some sections from the opposite perspective from various states who ban this treatment for underage children. Some of these state law bans are based on medical studies but some are not and seem to be based on religious beliefs which marginalize trans people without sound medical basis. A lot of states and the federal government prohibit trans medical care or benefits to pay for it based on beliefs that being trans in a mental disorder, but there is not sound science for that position one way or the other. KindHorta (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

based on beliefs that being trans in a mental disorder, but there is not sound science for that position one way or the other - RS agree that calling being trans a "mental disorder" is misinformation (apart from blatantly offensive): there is sound science one way, not the other.

What you are proposing, to add some sections from the opposite perspective from various states who ban this treatment for underage children, is WP:PROFRINGE editing. Again, every major medical org in the US opposes these bans - some lawmakers and evangelical lobbying groups opposing them doesn't mean we can ignore what medical reliable sources say. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist I would like to confirm that I do not agree. We should defer to the medical expertise of the major medical organizations, not the opinions of political commentators or legislators who largely do not have any expertise in the matter. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

This page is specifically about misinformation, and all the examples presented are misinformation. Anti-trans medical theories like rapid-onset dysphoria are WP:FRINGE pseudoscience with no scientific backing. See WP:DUE; we should not give any weight to fringe pseudoscience. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it. Just because "opposing views" exist does not mean that they should be treated equally to the truth. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The earth being flat has nothing to do with the POV views in this article. If this article is about "misinformation" then it's balanced opposite is evidence that some of what you claim to be misinformation in fact is not, but is good faith legislation in various states to protect young people until they reach and age where they can make their own choices. The impediment to trans health care issues are related to state law bans and federal bans on trans health care for procedures which many people view as ill-informed, especially for the young. Trump is a great example, he supported gay and lesbian rights but when it came to trans rights, he said the federal government would not be paying for trans health care for veterans or anyone else. He based his views on medical studies that being trans was a mental condition of some sort. I am going through all sorts of sources on this topic, but I plan to focus on state law bans and their rationale for banning this care for underage children. These bans are not "misinformation" but good faith efforts by american society to protect young people from ill-informed choices, at least that is their claimed basis. KindHorta (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Calling Donald Trump a "great example" of a good-faith actor regarding trans healthcare is laughable. He literally started a conspiracy theory that students were getting genital surgery in public school nurse offices. He is, like every other anti-transgender politician, spreading misinformation because transgender people and their rights are popular targets of the conservative culture war. Di (they-them) (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Every single major medical organization in the US opposes these bans... You are not going to find higher quality sources than that. If you insist on searching for sources to back up these fringe views, list them here for discussion before trying to add them to the article. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I will follow WP:BRD and be bold, then discuss here. Not every single medical organization opposes these bans, this statement is false. Allowing a 12 year old to decide to obtain gender affirming surgery is contrary to the law in many states, and the rationale for these restrictions makes a lot of sense. I agree that many of these conservative views are not all based on sound medical research, but children who are gender-confused need counseling, not surgery, at least not until they reach an age where they can make informed decisions as adults. A child going through puberty needs their sex hormones as nature intended in order to fully develop physically. Giving a 12 year old hormone therapy is harmful to their development until they reach maturity. People are XY or XX, and there are basic facts about biology, including brain development and development of secondary sex characteristics which are vital to development into mature adults. Manipulating a childs androgenic systems during puberty can cause all sorts of severe health issues in the long term. KindHorta (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

KindHorta, please show Wikipedia:Medrs that support your viewpoint and state your proposed changes to the article LunaHasArrived (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Not every single medical organization opposes these bans, this statement is false. - Prove it (and the American College of Pediatricians does not count).

People are XY or XX, and there are basic facts about biology - see intersex, that's not a basic fact that's just wrong

You have yet to provide a reliable source for a single claim you've made (and most in that paragraph alone are false). Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I am doing research right now, starting with Florida and Texas bans and the claimed medical basis for these bans. When I have my materials ready I would be happy to discuss them. KindHorta (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

FYI, tThe WP:RS that exist in this article already analyze the claimed medical bases for these bans (such as ROGD), and consider them misinformation.

Here is one on how Florida's ban was backed by ROGD.[4] This one looks at Florida and Texas, among other states, and specifically notes the misinformation present.[5] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, these are great sources to review. Give me a few days to read through all this. In the meantime, please consider addressing the unbalance in the article and attempt to portray other viewpoints. Thanks. KindHorta (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no "unbalance", what you are calling for is a WP:FALSEBALANCE between every major medical organization in the US on one side and some lobbyists on another. See also WP:PROFRINGE. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Please focus on content and not personal attacks. Thanks. KindHorta (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

No personal attacks have been leveled at all. The message you are replying to is about content. The facts are simple: we do not need to create "balance" between reliable medical sources and misinformation pushed by lobbyists. Di (they-them) (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SEALION is I have to say. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 09:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Is all I have to say I mean Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 09:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Soapbox man, also don't advocate for conversion therapy for trans kids. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Also have you heard of Klinefelter syndrome, and children at 15 can consent to all other medical surgeries including plastic so why not allow them to have a transitional surgery which in the first place has a lot of medical gate keeping and hoops you have to jump through. Also hormone therapy and puberty blockers are given to cisgender children but it's fine then and no one every complains about that, hmm I wonder why. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Transgender health care misinformation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (talk · contribs) 17:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Dan Leonard (talk · contribs) 00:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The first sentence is exceptionally clunky. It appears to attempt to shoehorn the article title verbatim as the first words, which while common practice, isn't necessary – see for instance the similar articles aspartame controversy, controversies in autism, or ethics of circumcision.

   The lead as a whole is also not great, as it is essentially a list of the article's headings rather than an overview of the topic as a whole.

   Every subheading under § Claims begins with "some have argued" which – besides being classic unattributed claims – is repetitive when reading.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Article uses high-quality sources and is careful to select those that meet WP:MEDRS.

   Slight issue: journal articles are generally only cited by year, while the article uses exact dates. Also, many have the |url= field filled with the URL that the DOI points to, which exposes the article to link rot and improperly suggests to readers that the articles are open access (journal articles with |doi-access=free will appear the same as those with |url=).

   The article by McNamara, McLamore, Meade, & Olgun (2024) is enough to establish notability for the article topic as a whole and that the article is not original research or synthesis.

   Article has copyvio and must be failed: the section § Responses from medical organizations is almost entirely massive quotations from press releases, and must be trimmed. These quotes are not plagiarism as they are attributed but still copyvio as the quotes are far longer than necessary. The section § Transgender identity as a mental health condition also uses one of the same overly-long quotations, which is a MOS issue as readers will have to reread the same paragraph.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The section § Impact needs significant expansion for this article to claim it actually covers its topic. There is only one sentence stating It has also led to bomb threats against Boston Children's Hospital, which does not directly connect how misinformation actually led to a bomb threat. After checking the source, I followed a reference to a paper that described a bomb threat targeted at Boston Children's Hospital based on false beliefs about gender-affirming surgery on children. Not only was this not explained in § Impact, but the instigating false belief (that children were receiving hysterectomies) does not get mention anywhere in the article, let alone under § Claims. If this misinformation is not even in the article, I don't think it's broad enough in its coverage to be a GA. It's surprising that the article Libs of TikTok § Gender-affirming-care-related content provides a much more comprehensive description of these events and the underlying misinformation.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Focuses entirely on WP:MEDRS sources without providing undue weight to fringe opinions. Would be even better if the lead also included the official positions of medical organizations instead of a list of the organizations that support misinformation.

   Has an Anglo-American bias in its coverage and could use more "in the United States" throughout the article, as anti-transgender misinformation likely manifests differently in different countries.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Article is not illustrated and does not necessarily need illustration. However, I could imagine it improved with a photo of maybe a hospital subject to a bomb threat (as is done at Libs of TikTok § Gender-affirming-care-related content) or a photo of an anti-LGBT protest (as is done at Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric § Homosexuality as sinful or ungodly).

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Copyvio requires that I fail this, although I think the rest of the issues could be resolved with a few days' work. I hope to see this article expanded and resubmitted as a GA.

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA target

Made a stab at rewriting the lead to be less wordy per the review and started expanding. Hopefully we can get this to GA status. Might be an idea to add more non-anglosphere/non-US info if possible too Bejakyo (talk) 06:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

not normally too keen on removing text, but have chopped down the quotes a fair bit here per the review. I believe the Endocrine society quote may also need chopping down a bit, but I was unware how best to go about it Bejakyo (talk) 07:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)